The Executive Diagnostic and Governance Toolkit
Assessing and Evidencing Program Integrity
Score your own function red, amber or green, find out which part is weakest, and walk into the next budget round able to defend what you want to fix. Built for leaders reviewing they already hold the program integrity playbook: the implementation guide, the roadmap and the working files, so repeating any of that is worthless. What is missing is the layer after implementation. How to assess the function honestly, what evidence to retain, how to score maturity, and how to put the result in front of a manager, an auditor or a client who was not involved. The immediate question: for one month of program integrity work, can you show what was measured, against what target, and what changed as a result.
Each order is checked and updated against the latest insights before delivery. That is why access takes up to 24 hours rather than being instant.
| 1 |
You stop guessing where you stand. You finish with a score, not an opinion: every part of your function rated red, amber or green, with the weakest ranked first. Evidence: a Quick Scan for the shape of it, then seven domain assessments of 30 scored questions each, 210 in all, rolled into one scorecard, plus a maturity radar and a current-versus-target gap analysis. |
| 2 |
You can defend the decision. You walk into the budget round with the gap named, the owner named and done defined, instead of a case built on instinct. Evidence: project charter, scope statement, RACI, requirements traceability and work breakdown structure, pre-filled in your domain's language. |
| 3 |
The work actually moves. The month after the decision is already built, so nothing stalls waiting for someone to design a form. Evidence: more than 60 project templates across all five PMBOK process groups, plus runbooks, SOPs, a KPI framework, audit checklists and a risk matrix. 55 to 65 files in total. |
| 4 |
You use it the day it lands. No blank templates to interpret. Every workbook opens with what it is, who uses it, when, how, a 1 to 5 scoring guide, what good looks like, and a worked example you delete and type over. |
The situation this is built for
You already have the implementation playbook, controls library, and roadmap. But when an auditor, executive, or client asks what improved, you scramble to piece together reports, meeting notes, and spreadsheets. There’s no consistent way to assess maturity, retain defensible evidence, or score progress month over month. The work exists — but proving it doesn’t.
Who this is for
The practitioner who owns program integrity operations and must now report on its effectiveness to stakeholders who were not involved in design or rollout.
Who this is not for
This is not for consultants building generic maturity models, vendors selling dashboards, or teams still setting up basic controls. It is for those who have already implemented and now must prove value.
What you walk away with
- Score program integrity maturity with defensible, repeatable criteria
- Retain evidence that survives audit scrutiny
- Produce monthly assessment reports showing measurable progress
- Align internal reviews with external accountability demands
- Turn working files into structured, auditable artifacts
How this maps to your situation
- You’ve implemented controls but struggle to prove their impact
- Auditors request evidence you can’t quickly produce
- Leadership asks for progress updates you can’t quantify
- Your team spends more time gathering evidence than improving controls
Before vs. after
What's included with your purchase
- 12 modules with 12 chapters each (144 chapters)
- Downloadable templates and worked examples for every module
- Hand-built implementation playbook delivered alongside course access
- 30-day money-back guarantee
Delivery and format
- Course and learning environment access provisioned within 24 hours of purchase
- Hand-built implementation playbook delivered alongside course access
Format: Text-based modules and chapters in the Art of Service learning environment, plus downloadable templates and worked examples for every chapter, plus the hand-built implementation playbook delivered alongside course access.
Time investment: Approximately 3 hours per module, designed for practitioners to apply directly to existing program integrity work.
How this compares to the alternatives
Generic GRC platforms offer dashboards but lack specificity. Public frameworks are too broad. This course delivers field-tested, practitioner-built methods to assess, evidence, and report on program integrity — not just implement it.
Also included: the full course, for when you want the reasoning behind a finding (12 modules, 144 chapters)
Depth reference. The diagnostic and the templates stand on their own; this is what to read when you want the reasoning behind a finding.
- Identifying the core components of program integrity
- Mapping assessment boundaries across departments
- Distinguishing between operational and compliance controls
- Setting criteria for inclusion in assessment scope
- Documenting excluded areas and justification rationale
- Aligning scope with organizational risk appetite
- Creating a stakeholder map for assessment input
- Using control ownership to assign assessment responsibility
- Defining thresholds for control significance
- Linking scope to regulatory and contractual obligations
- Establishing version control for scope documentation
- Preparing scope statements for auditor review
- Classifying evidence types by control category
- Setting retention periods based on risk tier
- Choosing secure storage methods for sensitive data
- Implementing naming conventions for audit trails
- Automating timestamping for manual control checks
- Integrating evidence logs with existing case management
- Defining access roles for evidence repositories
- Creating checksum processes for file integrity
- Documenting evidence collection frequency
- Building evidence retention calendars
- Linking evidence to control testing cycles
- Preparing evidence packs for surprise audits
- Defining maturity levels with behavioral indicators
- Assigning scoring weights to control effectiveness
- Using benchmark data from peer institutions
- Calibrating scoring panels to reduce bias
- Creating scoring rubrics for repeatable assessments
- Incorporating time-in-effect into maturity ratings
- Differentiating between design and operating effectiveness
- Applying scoring to both automated and manual controls
- Documenting scoring rationale for each control
- Establishing re-scoring intervals for dynamic updates
- Linking maturity scores to risk heat maps
- Publishing scored results with version control
- Selecting controls for periodic effectiveness testing
- Designing test scripts for transactional controls
- Sampling methods for high-volume control environments
- Measuring false positive and false negative rates
- Assessing timeliness of control execution
- Evaluating control precision against defined rules
- Reviewing exception handling procedures
- Testing integration points between control layers
- Measuring control fatigue in operational teams
- Documenting control override incidents
- Calculating control failure recovery time
- Producing control effectiveness scorecards
- Scheduling regular program integrity review meetings
- Preparing executive summary decks from raw data
- Aligning findings with board reporting timelines
- Creating action item tracking for remediation plans
- Linking findings to resource allocation decisions
- Presenting maturity trends to audit committees
- Incorporating stakeholder feedback into revisions
- Documenting governance meeting decisions
- Tracking follow-up on open items
- Escalating unresolved risks through formal channels
- Integrating findings into annual risk assessments
- Publishing governance minutes with access controls
- Structuring reports for regulatory examiner review
- Including evidence cross-references in appendices
- Formatting control descriptions for clarity
- Adding narrative context to quantitative metrics
- Validating report completeness with checklists
- Versioning reports for historical tracking
- Annotating changes from prior reporting periods
- Including independent verification statements
- Redacting sensitive information securely
- Preparing digital packages for submission
- Indexing reports for rapid navigation
- Signing off reports with attestation protocols
- Establishing baseline measurements for key controls
- Setting performance targets for maturity growth
- Calculating month-over-month control improvement
- Using control failure rate trends to assess impact
- Measuring reduction in manual intervention needs
- Tracking automation adoption across control sets
- Assessing staff proficiency gains through testing
- Monitoring decrease in audit findings over time
- Evaluating time saved in evidence collection
- Benchmarking against industry performance data
- Creating visual dashboards for trend reporting
- Documenting assumptions behind trend projections
- Identifying third parties requiring access to evidence
- Creating read-only portals for external reviewers
- Preparing Q&A briefs for validation interviews
- Scheduling walkthroughs of control environments
- Responding to information requests under deadline
- Validating third-party credentials before access
- Documenting external reviewer feedback
- Incorporating external findings into internal reviews
- Negotiating scope boundaries with external assessors
- Tracking validation outcomes across cycles
- Building relationships with recurring validators
- Archiving validation reports for future reference
- Mapping current evidence collection touchpoints
- Identifying redundant or overlapping requests
- Standardizing evidence submission formats
- Creating automated reminders for due dates
- Assigning evidence owners per control domain
- Reducing manual data entry through integrations
- Batching evidence collection cycles
- Using templates to reduce variation
- Training staff on evidence expectations
- Measuring time spent per evidence request
- Auditing evidence collection for completeness
- Updating workflows based on feedback
- Linking control performance to financial risk reduction
- Translating maturity scores into risk exposure estimates
- Connecting false positive rates to operational cost
- Mapping control improvements to customer trust
- Aligning evidence practices with ESG reporting
- Demonstrating compliance efficiency gains
- Tying program integrity to insurance premium factors
- Using control data to support due diligence
- Relating maturity growth to reputation risk
- Connecting assessment outcomes to strategic planning
- Measuring stakeholder confidence shifts
- Reporting program integrity ROI to finance teams
- Establishing version numbering for all artifacts
- Tracking changes to control definitions over time
- Using metadata to record author and timestamp
- Creating change logs for assessment criteria
- Managing concurrent edits with workflow locks
- Archiving superseded documentation securely
- Publishing change summaries for stakeholders
- Requiring approvals for significant updates
- Auditing version history for compliance
- Synchronizing documentation across teams
- Integrating version control with backup systems
- Training teams on version management protocols
- Scheduling recurring assessment cycles
- Incorporating new regulations into testing scope
- Updating maturity models with organizational changes
- Onboarding new team members to assessment practices
- Conducting refresher training on evidence standards
- Reviewing scoring consistency across assessors
- Updating templates to reflect current requirements
- Auditing assessment processes for drift
- Benchmarking against updated industry standards
- Integrating lessons from incidents into assessments
- Planning resource needs for future cycles
- Evolving the program based on long-term trends
Frequently asked
Within 24 hours your account in the learning environment is provisioned and the tailored implementation playbook is delivered alongside it.
Thousands of organisations have bought from The Art of Service since 2000.